Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Hellstan on January 30, 2008, 01:41:54 pm
-
This is my first post here.
I consider purchasing a Z3100. HP has a very good price for it in France this month (30% rebate).
First, I was considering 4880, but now I'm thinking bigger.
Apart some of you here who were very unhappy with paper feeding issues (known issue,which HP should address with a firmware update) and HP support problems (uncompetent people, problem I've had with lesser printer from HP), it seems Z3100 is far better for B/W print and ink management, consuming less ink per print and avoiding any clogging.
Would some of you give me some more insight on their usage (I've read many threads here on subject, but would like to know more) ?
I will have to print A4 to A1 for clients/display/shows etc.
Thanks to all
-
I just went through the same process you are in . I did not buy an epson because of big ink consumption, having to swap inks for glosssy and matte papers. HP at least in the us is now much better with customer support. Canon was really my other choice. I became convinced that hp for me would be a better choice . Better blacks higher d max. I sell some concert photos, blacks in the back ground are important tom e . I have huge amount of B& w negs . the paper handling issues are mostly with the new bryata papers and they are so delicate in general that I do not want to deal much with them at this point. Also the hp has the longest archival life span with there inks. Also the ink is cheaper here in the us then canon. I live close to the bone so all of these issues mean a lot to me. David PS All of these printers now are so good it is not funny .
-
I just went through the same process you are in . I did not buy an epson because of big ink consumption, having to swap inks for glosssy and matte papers. HP at least in the us is now much better with customer support. Canon was really my other choice. I became convinced that hp for me would be a better choice . Better blacks higher d max. I sell some concert photos, blacks in the back ground are important tom e . I have huge amount of B& w negs . the paper handling issues are mostly with the new bryata papers and they are so delicate in general that I do not want to deal much with them at this point. Aslo the hp has the longest archival life span with there inks. Also the ink is cheaper here in the us then canon. I live close to the bone so all of these issues mena alot to me. David PS All of these printers now are so good it is not funny .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you David for your remarks
It really seems HP B/W are better.
I also have 10 000 B/W + negs waiting
for some works and prints.
My only issue would be the sheet loading.
My rep in France (a renowned specialist in
graphics) tells me HP should revise firmware
for this.
And, finally, I learnt that Magnum is equipped with Z…
;-))
-
I am quite happy with the Z, after many years printing w/ Epsons and QTR for B&W. I scan all my own film with a drum scannner (Howtek 6500 w/ DPL), and great B&W output on both matte and glossy papers is very important to me. My customers have been happy with the output as well
Wow, 10K negs! I also have 1000's including my own and my Grandfather's 100 year old film!
Bill
Thank you David for your remarks
It really seems HP B/W are better.
I also have 10 000 B/W + negs waiting
for some works and prints.
My only issue would be the sheet loading.
My rep in France (a renowned specialist in
graphics) tells me HP should revise firmware
for this.
And, finally, I learnt that Magnum is equipped with Z…
;-))
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
And, finally, I learnt that Magnum is equipped with Z…
;-))
and the Louvre, and other museums /artist have selected Epson...
As earlier in the post - they'll all fine machines - each with their own strengths and foibles.
I personally have Epson printers because of their piezo head technology (lack of heat bias affecting inks/solutions). Once I can figure out how to get a service manual for a 4800 /4880 - I can begin experimenting with solutions other than 'inks'...
an engineer /scientist /artist
-
I am quite happy with the Z, after many years printing w/ Epsons and QTR for B&W. I scan all my own film with a drum scannner (Howtek 6500 w/ DPL), and great B&W output on both matte and glossy papers is very important to me. My customers have been happy with the output as well
Wow, 10K negs! I also have 1000's including my own and my Grandfather's 100 year old film!
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
William,
10 000 strips, not 10 K films
So it's only about 3000 films, really ;-)
Well, I shoot seriously since only two years,
but I shot a lot… and decided to open a fine art portrait boutique at home.
Czechcolovaquian custom : open house (see Lou Reed & John Cale for this…)
Every beautiful people in town passes by and I shoot them. Sort of mini-court painter mood.
Thank you a lot for your reply.
You should show us more on your website, I'm eager to see what you get.
Johan
-
And, finally, I learnt that Magnum is equipped with Z…
;-))
and the Louvre, and other museums /artist have selected Epson...
As earlier in the post - they'll all fine machines - each with their own strengths and foibles.
I personally have Epson printers because of their piezo head technology (lack of heat bias affecting inks/solutions).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, titus.
Magnum reference was kind of a joke — not a snub.
Well, the Louvre publishes less photos than Magnum though…
-
I'm on the same fence - I have to decide by tomorrow, as the rebates are ending.
-
I'm on the same fence - I have to decide by tomorrow, as the rebates are ending.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ha-ha, let's open a club.
Well, frankly, after discussing with seelig here, neil snape in Paris, and reading M. Reichmann's review, I'm about to plunge.
My concern, apart the tag price, is the bulk. I'll have to move my desk around and push the walls a bit.
Then, it's a fact that I'm sick to show pics on screen to people. An image belongs to paper print.
When you show a (large) print to someone, they usually say : Wow…
-
When you show a (large) print to someone, they usually say : Wow…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
So it's come down to the old 'size is everything' argument - so does that mean that the Z is the equivalent of the Hummer or Porsche of printers?
Guess I'm in the same class a Vermeer ( and his small paintings) - e/tb and my 'volvo' 4880.......
-
When you show a (large) print to someone, they usually say : Wow…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So it's come down to the old 'size is everything' argument - so does that mean that the Z is the equivalent of the Hummer or Porsche of printers?
Guess I'm in the same class a Vermeer ( and his small paintings) - e/tb and my 'volvo' 4880.......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
I don't know about Porsche, I drive an old Jaguar I paid (much) less than a new Volvo (or even used Volvo)
I just wished to say that people are too much used to see (and show) pics on screen, which is the same as seeing movies on TV and not on silver screen, or eating de-frozen food. Not the real
flavor.
When I said (large) print [unquote], you noticed large was in parenthesis.
PS
BTW you really were in the same class as Vermeer ? How was he ? Really interesting guy, I heard… Especially with window lightings, they say…
-
It's not all in the size for me - just looking at an 11x14 print - the detail lost on screen is astounding. It's always a plesant surprise when my prints come back for the first time, to see what they actually look like
-
It's not all in the size for me - just looking at an 11x14 print - the detail lost on screen is astounding. It's always a plesant surprise when my prints come back for the first time, to see what they actually look like
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I couldn't agree more…
-
BTW you really were in the same class as Vermeer ? How was he ? Really interesting guy, I heard…
yeah..... Fred was the class cut-up... one day, during perspective class he appeared with a horrible hangover - his drawings that day looked more like Kandinsky than his usual stuff. The prof always told him - 'bigger, bigger...' but he would rather spend the money on wine than larger canvases.
Good luck with you new printer - no matter what the make /model. Never be afraid to push the envelope and/or experiment - that's what art and creativity is all about.
-
his drawings that day looked more like Kandinsky than his usual stuff. The prof always told him - 'bigger, bigger...' but he would rather spend the money on wine than larger canvases.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know, saddly, Verm' and Kandink' never got along. Wonder why, though…
Anyway, titus, thanks for your kind encouragement. I'll try to find time to push farther away.
Seriously, being more down to earth, I wonder what is the cost per prints/formats with the Z.
I have two pro labs just behind my place, one is film-B/W only, the other is film-digital colour.
They charge from around 3 to 15 (even 20) euros depending of work, paper, format. Normally,
after a few hundred prints (300 ?), it's a wrap.
-
Yes, I know, saddly, Verm' and Kandink' never got along. Wonder why, though…
Anyway, titus, thanks for your kind encouragement. I'll try to find time to push farther away.
Seriously, being more down to earth, I wonder what is the cost per prints/formats with the Z.
I have two pro labs just behind my place, one is film-B/W only, the other is film-digital colour.
They charge from around 3 to 15 (even 20) euros depending of work, paper, format. Normally,
after a few hundred prints (300 ?), it's a wrap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One of the nicer features of the Z3100's slightly squirrely driver is a "job accounting" tab that tells you exactly how much ink you used for each print or job. For my work this generally works out to be about 25 ml of ink per square meter; at current prices this means about $14 (U.S.) per square meter, or about $11.50 if you buy "twin-packs". Add the cost of your favorite paper, and that's your material cost.
Once you add the cost of the printer itself, and the time it takes to learn how to use it effectively, I figure it's probably a toss up whether you save money compared to having your bigger prints made by a service bureau. On the other hand, being able to make a test print, analyze it for problems, correct the image file and then run off a perfect print, all in just minutes, is wonderful.
And if black & white is a big part of your work, the Z is as good as it gets without resorting to third-party custom inksets and drivers. Its D-max on both matte and photo papers is as black as black can be, and the driver's handling of toning options for monochrome is a model of clarity and flexibility.
-
One of the nicer features of the Z3100's slightly squirrely driver is a "job accounting" tab that tells you exactly how much ink you used for each print or job. For my work this generally works out to be about 25 ml of ink per square meter; at current prices this means about $14 (U.S.) per square meter, or about $11.50 if you buy "twin-packs". Add the cost of your favorite paper, and that's your material cost.
Once you add the cost of the printer itself, and the time it takes to learn how to use it effectively, I figure it's probably a toss up whether you save money compared to having your bigger prints made by a service bureau. On the other hand, being able to make a test print, analyze it for problems, correct the image file and then run off a perfect print, all in just minutes, is wonderful.
And if black & white is a big part of your work, the Z is as good as it gets without resorting to third-party custom inksets and drivers. Its D-max on both matte and photo papers is as black as black can be, and the driver's handling of toning options for monochrome is a model of clarity and flexibility.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Geoff,
I just wonder if, printing as I will, mostly A4 and A3, and less often A2 and plus, if I'm not "overshooting" with that machine.
But it's true I will do a lot of B/W with it.
My other option was the 4880, with less quality in B/W and that clogging matter that bothers, in case the machine remains idle for a week or so. Users who are not clogging are, it seems, big users running it all day.
-
All of these issues were covered only last week in this thread:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....opic=22705&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22705&st=0)
-
All of these issues were covered only last week in this thread:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....opic=22705&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22705&st=0)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not exactly, Marty, because cost usage matters were not addressed.
In fact, after checking my pro lab fares, a 30/40 is around 30 euros
— without any trial and error really possible.
This month, I have around 60 prints to do. So the math is rapidly done.
-
One of the nicer features of the Z3100's slightly squirrely driver is a "job accounting" tab that tells you exactly how much ink you used for each print or job. For my work this generally works out to be about 25 ml of ink per square meter; at current prices this means about $14 (U.S.) per square meter, or about $11.50 if you buy "twin-packs". Add the cost of your favorite paper, and that's your material cost.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean you have to change a whole bunch of cartridges every 10 square meters (around),
meaning for about thirty 30/40 cm prints ? This is much more expensive than I thought.
-
You mean you have to change a whole bunch of cartridges every 10 square meters (around),
meaning for about thirty 30/40 cm prints ? This is much more expensive than I thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not quite that bad. The catridges are 130 ml each, and there are 12 of them. Depending on what you're printing they can 'drain' at pretty similar rates; the light grey does seem to go down a bit faster, especially with monochrome prints. Also, the numbers I quoted were for HP's pro satin paper, which soaks up a lot of ink. I've had the printer since May, and I still have the original 60 ml starter cartridges at two positions despite going through quite a few rolls of paper. it is certainly more frugal with ink than the Epsons.
Even if you mostly print smaller, it's nice to have the ability to make an occasional stunning 24x36" print of a special image
-
It's not quite that bad. The catridges are 130 ml each, and there are 12 of them. Depending on what you're printing they can 'drain' at pretty similar rates; the light grey does seem to go down a bit faster, especially with monochrome prints. Also, the numbers I quoted were for HP's pro satin paper, which soaks up a lot of ink. I've had the printer since May, and I still have the original 60 ml starter cartridges at two positions despite going through quite a few rolls of paper. it is certainly more frugal with ink than the Epsons.
Even if you mostly print smaller, it's nice to have the ability to make an occasional stunning 24x36" print of a special image
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure to understand.
Since May, do you know how many prints you did ?
Here, in France, a set of cartridges is 598 euros (900 euros for bipack).
If a set leaves me with around 10 square meters (around 30 prints in format 30x40 cm, correct if I'm wrong), it means each print (cost of paper apart) is around 20 euros… in ink only… which is a lot for me.
But you say you already used quite a few rolls of paper…
Am I wrong somewhere ?
It's important for me to understand the cost of running this machine (in ink), because it's quite a decision…
-
I'm not sure to understand.
Since May, do you know how many prints you did ?
Here, in France, a set of cartridges is 598 euros (900 euros for bipack).
If a set leaves me with around 10 square meters (around 30 prints in format 30x40 cm, correct if I'm wrong), it means each print (cost of paper apart) is around 20 euros… in ink only… which is a lot for me.
But you say you already used quite a few rolls of paper…
Am I wrong somewhere ?
It's important for me to understand the cost of running this machine (in ink), because it's quite a decision…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ink usage quoted was the total volume of ink used. There are 12 cartridges. Divide the total by 12 to see the average ink use per cartridge.
I am using less than half the ink than I was using in my old Epson 4000. The cost advantage over Epson on a per print basis is very large.
-
It's important for me to understand the cost of running this machine (in ink), because it's quite a decision…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just looking at the printer utility. I made recently a lot of prints on Canvas mat Artist HP. Print size about 0,5 m2. Ink consumption between 4, 05 and 6,76 ml. Best quality but no gloss of course. Obviously, it depends a lot from the image itself.
HP premium gloss. Print size 0,26 M2, Ink consumption between 4,48 and 4,82 ml (including gloss).
Ilford Gallerie Gold (including Gloss) 1,13 m2=12,1 ml; 0,19 m2=2,02ml.
I don't know how accurate are these consumption and how far we can trust the HP utility. But the only fact that you don't have any longer to spend ink with the clogging give you the feeling than you save a lot of money, at least when you had first an Epson 4000. But I heard the last Epson were not so clogged.
-
One of the nicer features of the Z3100's slightly squirrely driver is a "job accounting" tab that tells you exactly how much ink you used for each print or job.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My Epson Stylus Pro 3800 can do the same. I guess any decent printer can keep a protocol which says (among other things) how much ink was consumed for each job.
For my work this generally works out to be about 25 ml of ink per square meter[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Between 25 and 30 ml per square meter (1.0 - 1.2 ml per A4 print with a one-inch white border) is the figure I am arriving at with my Epson 3800 ... so I am wondering where the rumour is coming from HP printers consumed less than half as much ink as Epson printers do.
... at current prices this means about $14 US per square meter, or about $11.50 US if you buy "twin-packs".[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With the 3800's smaller 80 ml cartridges (eight of them ... umm, nine actually but only eight of them are in use at any given time), my ink cost is around EUR 13.50 - 15.00 per square meter, or EUR 0.55 - 0.70 per A4 print. One set of ink cartridges (8 × 80 ml) is good for approx. 600 A4 prints or 300 A3 prints. Considering the prices for high-end inkjet photo paper, the ink cost is of secondary importance.
With the HP Z3100, a full set of 12 × 130 ml of ink should yield approx. 1,400 A4 prints or 700 A3 prints or 60 square meters (provided all colours are getting used up evenly).
-- Olaf
-
In the just idle mode my older epson 7600 ate a lot of ink I do not know about the current epsons, but it is worth checking out . David
-
Thanks to all.
After much pondering and math and sobering, I decided to be much more reasonable :
my dealer makes me an offer for an Epson 3800 with a 15% rebate (around 950 €
instead of 1100 €.
I'll go for this one, maybe not absolutely top satisfaction regarding B/W, but there will
be plenty of place to come back on the Z3100 subject later, with new promos from HP.
That way, I'll invest more in paper… and still might have enough for an Eizo
-
Between 25 and 30 ml per square meter (1.0 - 1.2 ml per A4 print with a one-inch white border) is the figure I am arriving at with my Epson 3800 ... so I am wondering where the rumour is coming from HP printers consumed less than half as much ink as Epson printers do.
-- Olaf
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=171233\")
My last Z3100 log says 5.64 square meters and 56,69 ML used. This was mainly HM matte coatings and the highest inklimit setting the Z3100 knows = Fine Art etc>250 grams. Few small gloss sheets with gloss enhancer included. About 10 ML a square meter which is what I have seen in the past as well. With Gloss Enhancer over the entire surface this may go up to 15 ML a square meter but then the question is raised whether the GE should be compared to varnishing afterwards or to ink use by other printers that can not suppress gloss difference.
Twin packs 130 ML = 260 ML have a 30 Eurocents per ML without VAT price which is about equal to the 220 ML Epson carts and the 350 ML Canon carts ML price.
I think you need a RIP to lay down 20-25 ML a square meter with an average image, the driver doesn't in my opinion. I really wonder how the 20-25 ML per square meter ink use of a Z3100 got into this thread. I think my lousy Wasatch SoftRip may do that as it doesn't use a black generation as good as the HP driver.
On all other aspects, cleaning, ink switches, idle time, the Z3100 is frugal on ink, even compared to an Epson 3800 that will waste an average 6 ML on every switch cycle MK>PK>MK. The 3800 ink price is 45 Eurocents per ML excl VAT if I recall correctly.
According to my ISO and metric knowledge there are 16 A4 pages in an A0 page and an A0 page is one square meter. So your 3800 ink consumption is 16 to 19 ML per square meter and that square meter will have 4 cm white borders to get the equivalent white border your A4's had. My accounting says that your 3800 consumes 60% more ink in best case and the ink costs 50% more than what I have to pay. Not counting a Black ink switch here. In worst case the 3800 probably uses 3x the money a Z3100 needs to print a square meter.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
My last Z3100 log says 5.64 square meters and 56,69 ML used. This was mainly HM matte coatings and the highest inklimit setting the Z3100 knows = Fine Art etc>250 grams. Few small gloss sheets with gloss enhancer included. About 10 ML a square meter which is what I have seen in the past as well. With Gloss Enhancer over the entire surface this may go up to 15 ML a square meter but then the question is raised whether the GE should be compared to varnishing afterwards or to ink use by other printers that can not suppress gloss difference.
Twin packs 130 ML = 260 ML have a 30 Eurocents per ML without VAT price which is about equal to the 220 ML Epson carts and the 350 ML Canon carts ML price.
I think you need a RIP to lay down 20-25 ML a square meter with an average image, the driver doesn't in my opinion. I really wonder how the 20-25 ML per square meter ink use of a Z3100 got into this thread. I think my lousy Wasatch SoftRip may do that as it doesn't use a black generation as good as the HP driver.
On all other aspects, cleaning, ink switches, idle time, the Z3100 is frugal on ink, even compared to an Epson 3800 that will waste an average 6 ML on every switch cycle MK>PK>MK. The 3800 ink price is 45 Eurocents per ML excl VAT if I recall correctly.
According to my ISO and metric knowledge there are 16 A4 pages in an A0 page and an A0 page is one square meter. So your 3800 ink consumption is 16 to 19 ML per square meter and that square meter will have 4 cm white borders to get the equivalent white border your A4's had. My accounting says that your 3800 consumes 60% more ink in best case and the ink costs 50% more than what I have to pay. Not counting a Black ink switch here. In worst case the 3800 probably uses 3x the money a Z3100 needs to print a square meter.
Ernst Dinkla
try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks a lot, Ernst, it's very interesting.
I'm doing the math from another point of view now.
With rebate, here, Z3100 is 3200 euros + on-site service for 5 years (the time I will work with that machine before a swap) is 1900 euros = total 5100 euros.
For my need, for now, the 3800 is enough.
Total cost : 950 euros (with rebate) + on-site service for 3 years : 330 euros. Total = 1270 euros.
Difference : 3830 euros.
If my prints do sell or bring me clients, I'll consider the Z3100 sometime later on the road.
A big thanx again for your input.
Johan
-
While you are considering Photo Printers I will suggest The EpsonStylus PHOTO 1400. The new CLARIA inks are superb. The printer covers up to 13X19 pribnts witrh outstanding detail.
I stumbled on it when I upgraded to VISTA and my HP Printer refused to go along. An hour with an HP Tech controlling my system did nothing, so I donated the unit to a local school and took a chance on the Epson. Needless to say I am very pleased. The 12X18, and 13X19 prints made from Sony R1 images are dazzling.
Ink usage is q1uite good, not as heavy as my former HP.
-
While you are considering Photo Printers I will suggest The EpsonStylus PHOTO 1400. The new CLARIA inks are superb. The printer covers up to 13X19 pribnts witrh outstanding detail.
I stumbled on it when I upgraded to VISTA and my HP Printer refused to go along. An hour with an HP Tech controlling my system did nothing, so I donated the unit to a local school and took a chance on the Epson. Needless to say I am very pleased. The 12X18, and 13X19 prints made from Sony R1 images are dazzling.
Ink usage is q1uite good, not as heavy as my former HP.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=171489\")
Whether the Claria inks are superb is open for debate. The bare bulb exposure + ozone fading in Wilhelm's test of Epson PPP gloss says 14 years, the ozone resistance is surprisingly low if that is an RC paper. The fade resistance is better when framed but most bare bulb + ozone tests on other papers are "still in test" which usually says "not fit for publishing" if the framed test results are already published.
Then there's the 6 ink printer model the Claria comes with. More metamerism, more ink use (less black generation), hard to keep neutrality in time so worse in B&W printing. Gloss not better than Epson K3 printers.
Ink carts are small and the ML price is 91 Eurocents excl VAT. Ink price per square meter so twice that of the 3800, probably more. The message before gives the ink price per square meter of a Z3100 which will be 1/4-1/6 of the 1400.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Thanks a lot, Ernst, it's very interesting.
I'm doing the math from another point of view now.
With rebate, here, Z3100 is 3200 euros + on-site service for 5 years (the time I will work with that machine before a swap) is 1900 euros = total 5100 euros.
For my need, for now, the 3800 is enough.
Total cost : 950 euros (with rebate) + on-site service for 3 years : 330 euros. Total = 1270 euros.
Difference : 3830 euros.
If my prints do sell or bring me clients, I'll consider the Z3100 sometime later on the road.
A big thanx again for your input.
Johan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=171488\")
Just a note that HP has a master class coming up with a renowned Magnum photographer whom I've met before here in Paris. It will be worth just the price of shop talk, but the attendees can expect very good price offer on the Z3100 I'm told.
[a href=\"http://h41112.www4.hp.com/promo/masterclass/fr/fr/?jumpid=ex_r10983_1-mrmid_fr_fr_ga_ipg/mu/-/masterclass]http://h41112.www4.hp.com/promo/masterclas...u/-/masterclass[/url]
-
Just a note that HP has a master class coming up with a renowned Magnum photographer whom I've met before here in Paris. It will be worth just the price of shop talk, but the attendees can expect very good price offer on the Z3100 I'm told.
http://h41112.www4.hp.com/promo/masterclas...u/-/masterclass (http://h41112.www4.hp.com/promo/masterclass/fr/fr/?jumpid=ex_r10983_1-mrmid_fr_fr_ga_ipg/mu/-/masterclass)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very nice, Neil.
I won't be in Paris, but thank you all the same.
-
titusbear, Over on outback photo in their 9600 printer diary are several links to free Epson service manuals.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsigh.../Epson9600.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi013/Epson9600.html)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030812073637/...SP76_9600_A.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20030812073637/www.visual-artists.com/Manuals/SP76_9600_A.pdf)
Home page:
http://www.eserviceinfo.com/ (http://www.eserviceinfo.com/)
9600/7600 field repair guide download page (free download):
http://www.eserviceinfo.com/download.php?fileid=10251 (http://www.eserviceinfo.com/download.php?fileid=10251)
9600 exploded diagram download page (free download):
http://fileshare.eshop.bg/downloadsm/11566/EPSON_9600.html (http://fileshare.eshop.bg/downloadsm/11566/EPSON_9600.html)
-
My last Z3100 log says 5.64 square meters and 56.69 ml used.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed? So that's approx. 10 ml per square meter---a significantly lower figure than mine. You've won.
I really wonder how the 20 - 25 ml per square meter ink use of a Z3100 got into this thread.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If that figure is wrong and yours is right then the HP Z3100 indeed does use significantly less ink than the Epson 3800. Funny that half the ink (or twice the ink, depending on where you're coming from) is supposed to be able to yield the basically same image quality ...
According to my ISO and metric knowledge there are 16 A4 pages in an A0 page and an A0 page is one square meter.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's right.
So your 3800 ink consumption is 16 to 19 ml per square meter ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's wrong. It's 25 - 30 ml per square meter, as I said. Don't forget to take the white border into consideration; it does make quite a difference! However my figure is based on interpolating from only a few print jobs so I am afraid it's not too accurate. On the other hand, it's fairly close to what other Epson users have reported elsewhere.
... and that square meter will have 4 cm white borders to get the equivalent white border your A4's had.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your math is seriously flawed here.
My accounting says that your 3800 consumes 60 % more ink in best case and the ink costs 50 % more than what I have to pay.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most likely you're about right regarding the cost ... I don't care too much. It's okay if a smaller printer has higher ink cost than a larger one. As a matter of fact, the Epson 3800 does not suit high-volume printing very well. For low-volume printing, like mine, it's just great. The ink is still cheaper than, say, an with Epson R2400 or HP B9180, and paper cost bothers me way more than ink.
-- Olaf
-
I put some numbers to the cost per copy on my review on my site. They are probably close to what others are getting. The variable of course is the image content, and use of GE, and MK in the big picture for the Z3100.
-
Indeed? So that's approx. 10 ml per square meter---a significantly lower figure than mine. You've won.
If that figure is wrong and yours is right then the HP Z3100 indeed does use significantly less ink than the Epson 3800. Funny that half the ink (or twice the ink, depending on where you're coming from) is supposed to be able to yield the basically same image quality ...
That's right.
That's wrong. It's 25 - 30 ml per square meter, as I said. Don't forget to take the white border into consideration; it does make quite a difference! However my figure is based on interpolating from only a few print jobs so I am afraid it's not too accurate. On the other hand, it's fairly close to what other Epson users have reported elsewhere.
Your math is seriously flawed here.
Most likely you're about right regarding the cost ... I don't care too much. It's okay if a smaller printer has higher ink cost than a larger one. As a matter of fact, the Epson 3800 does not suit high-volume printing very well. For low-volume printing, like mine, it's just great. The ink is still cheaper than, say, an with Epson R2400 or HP B9180, and paper cost bothers me way more than ink.
-- Olaf
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=175487\")
The 25 to 30 ml ink per square meter is not an average number for the inkjet printers discussed here. Not even for Epsons. My experience with Epson 9000s and a 10000 has been a cart of 220 ML (9000) per roll of 12 meters long and 1.12 wide. With pigment inks loaded. The ink used from that cart was in the order of 195 - 200 ML, about 10% left in the cart. That's a 14 -15 ML per square meter on mainly Hahnemühle coated matte papers. Six ink channel models with little black generation so more CcMmY used for composite greys than with today's K3 models and their long black generation. That type of paper asks for heavy ink loads as can be seen in HP's list of ink limits per paper coating. Since that early Epson 9000 model range the ink use on Epsons has been improved but still isn't near the ink economy of the HP Z models. If your 3800 uses that amount of ink then either too much is left in the empty carts, you do the black Pk>MK>PK cycle very often or you print the densest average images of all here. There's nothing wrong with my math on this but something is wrong at your side.
There's nothing wrong with my math on the 1 cm margin on A4s being equal to 4 cm margin on A0 either, in a matrix of 4 x 4 A4s on one sheet A0 you can easily see that that's equal but I actually computed the printed areas. In both cases it is 0.84 M2.
My estimation has been that an Epson could be using 40% more ink (maximum) than a HP Z in practice. Not counting GE on the Z but for the rest everything counted, cleaning, what lands on the paper, black ink changes where appropriate per model. A maximum, it probably is less but depends on the model and how it is used. !6-19 ML on an Epson then translates to 11-14 ML on a HP, the image densities unknown this is an acceptable relation.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
The 25 to 30 ml ink per square meter is not an average number for the inkjet printers discussed here. Not even for Epsons.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hope you're right. I'm not going to argue here. As I said, I arrived at that figure through extrapolating from just a few print jobs, so it possibly isn't too accurate anyway. If the actual number is lower then more power to Epson!
There's nothing wrong with my math on the 1 cm margin on A4s being equal to 4 cm margin on A0 either ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, I see ... so you were confusing inches with centimeters. I said I'm printing on A4 sheets with one-inch borders, not one-centimeter. So one square meter of fully printed area is equivalent to 25 A4 sheets with one-inch white borders.
-- Olaf
-
Oh, I see ... so you were confusing inches with centimeters. I said I'm printing on A4 sheets with one-inch borders, not one-centimeter. So one square meter of fully printed area is equivalent to 25 A4 sheets with one-inch white borders.
-- Olaf
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=175669\")
Flawed reading then or bad eyesight. My apology. Approx 10 cm white borders on an A0 then which is substantially less printed area = 0.69 M2. 25 ML per square meter printed area as you quoted. That doesn't take away the fact that there's something still wrong on the ink consumption in my opinion.
My quotes for the old Epsons were all based on the simple 13 M2 matte paper roll = one cart that gives 14 ml per square meter but that's all paper included, margin waste etc and all ink used, cleaning etc. That has been a standard we could work with for years. If I check the HP Z3100 log over almost a year and with the same basics it is half of that in ink use. The recent 10 job log gives a bit below 10 ml per M2. Neil's Z3100 reported numbers are harder to interpret, is it with gloss enhancer or without, with paper margins + waste or without. I guess the last and without GE and is about two times the number I see. Still a lot below your MLs per square meter. The log image on Neil's page gives a 18,59 ML per square meter but if you check the papers used it has been mainly RC photopaper and I assume GE used in economy or full page mode. That creates a lot more ink (varnish) consumption and has no equivalent in Epsons but the R1800/800/1900.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Yes it was with GE. I usually set it to ECO mode, unless printing batches on rolls. I don't print borderless, but always try to fill up to the margins.
My images are usually pretty dark, but not all the time.
As I've said before , ink usage is something that comes over time. Power users are now in a better position to report their usages than when I posted those first look numbers. The numbers were however quite consistent over many 100' rolls now I think about it.